SADASHIV TATOBA GATADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question referred to the Full Bench is "whether the expression 'butter' within the meaing of rule A. 11.05 in the Rules framed under S, 23 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act includes butter prepared from curd?" In order to answer this question, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Act was enacted in 1954 in order to make provision for the prevention of food adulteration. Clause (1) in S. 2 of the Act defines the term "adulterated". This clause contrains sub-clauses (a) to (1) , which lay down the different circumstances in which an article of food shall be deemed to be adulterated. For instance, under sub-clause (a) an article of food is to be deemed to be adulterated if the article sold by a vendor is not of the nature, substance or quality demanded by the purchaser andis to his prejudice, or is not of the nature, substance or quality which it purports or is represented to be. Under sub-clause (1), with which we are concerned in this case an article of food is to be deemd to be adulterated if the quality or purity of the article fall below the prescribed standard or its constitutents are present in qualities which are in excess of the prescribed limits of variability. The word "prescribed" is defined in clause (xii) as meaning prescribed by rules made under this Act. The rule making powr is conferred upon the Central Government by S. 23 of the Act. Clause (b) in sub-section (1) of this section empowers the Central Government to make rules defining the standards of quality for, and fixing the limits of variability permissible in respect of, any article of food. In exercise of powers conferred by S. 23, the Central Government has made the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. Rule 5 of these Rules states that the standards of quality B to these rules are as defined in that Appendix. Appendix B does not, therefore, lay down the standards of quality of all articles of food, but only of those articles which are sprcified in this Appendix. The heading of Appendix is "Definitions and Standards of Quality.'' Rue A. 11 in this Appendix contains provisions with regard to milk and milk products. Rule A. 11.01 defines milk as meaning "the normal clean and fresh secretion obtained by completge milking of the udder of a healthy cow, buffalo, goat or sheep during the period following at least 72 hours after calving or until colostrum free whether such secretion has been processed or not." Rule A. 11.08 defines butter-milk as meaning the product obtained after removel of butter from curds by churning or otherwise. Rule A. 11.05 is in the following terms:

(2.) The question, which we have to decide, is whether butter prepared from dahi or curd can be said to be butter prepared from milk within the meaning of Rule a. 11.05.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner-accused it has been urged by Mr. Adik that the rules contain separate provisions with regard to milk products and prescribe different standards for such products, that curd is a milk product and not milk, that Rule A. 11.05 also deals wth butter prepared from a milk product, viz. cream, and that the fact that the rule refers separately to cream only also indicates that the rule making authority intended to exclude from the purview of the rule butter prepared from other milk products such as curd. Stress has also been laid on the word "exclusively" and it has been contended that the rule applies only to butter made from curd. Reliance has been placed on Narsinha Bhaskar Chitale v. State of Bombay, 60 Bom LR 434, in which Miabhoy, J. held that butter prepared from out of curd does not come within the purview of the definition of her word "butter" given in A. 100.05 of Appendix B to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955.